RP Listener Forum

RAFT  »   Climate Change
Post to this Topic
R_P
Sep 13, 2017 - 10:54am

I Was an Exxon-Funded Climate Scientist

ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time, now.

Investigative reports in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.

Now, a peer-reviewed study published August 23 has confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements.

Specifically, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science – acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would agree with at the time.

Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the study found.

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon?

I have a unique perspective – because I was there. (...)


 
Red_Dragon
Sep 7, 2017 - 12:58pm

 maryte wrote:
This series of interactive graphs really show what the problem is (unless, of course, you're data-averse):

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
 
NASA participating in Chinese climate chance myth! Fake news! Sad!
 
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Sep 7, 2017 - 12:35pm

 maryte wrote:
This series of interactive graphs really show what the problem is (unless, of course, you're data-averse):

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
 
wow, that last chart is an amazing match. I didn't expect that to be so close.
 
maryte  (Blinding You With Library Science!)
Sep 7, 2017 - 12:31pm

This series of interactive graphs really show what the problem is (unless, of course, you're data-averse):

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

 
haresfur  (The Golden Triangle)
Jun 29, 2017 - 5:16pm

 kcar wrote:


Ricky Bobby Perry is the definition of "empty suit." I see that he's still trying to raise his IQ with those "I am serious and intelligent" glasses. 

 
If Rick Perry was correct that people are contributing to climate change but only a small part of the contribution, the conclusion is that we have to alter our behavior sooner and more radically. Maybe cutting our emissions in half would be enough if we are the major cause, but if we are only a minor contributor (we are a major contributor, but for the sake of discussion), then we have to make proportionally greater change to have the same effect.

TL;DR: get your thumb out of your butt and cut emissions
 
kcar
Jun 29, 2017 - 2:23pm

 R_P wrote:


 

Ricky Bobby Perry is the definition of "empty suit." I see that he's still trying to raise his IQ with those "I am serious and intelligent" glasses. 
 
R_P
Jun 29, 2017 - 11:06am


 
R_P
Jun 27, 2017 - 2:34pm


 
Antigone  (A house, in a Virginian Valley)
Mar 28, 2017 - 7:16am


 
 
 
 
R_P
Mar 18, 2017 - 7:03pm

Denier-in-Chief
 
R_P
Mar 17, 2017 - 10:59pm


1961
 
Red_Dragon
Mar 15, 2017 - 6:43pm

 haresfur wrote:
The thing that is missing in the response to climate change deniers is asking for their evidence. The science community tends to focus on laying out all our reasons people are changing the climate and respond with more studies and more data when challenged.

But the real response should be, "Ok Scott Exxon, explain the science behind your belief. Do you agree that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? Does that CO2 end up in the atmosphere? Show evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that causes the atmosphere to trap more heat from solar radiation? What other mechanism do you have that explains our climate trends and calculate the magnitude of the effect (be sure to show your work)? How do you propose we can adapt to survive under conditions of periods in the earth history when temperatures were much warmer? If we mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, how much would that help provide additional time to adapt to any changes due to your mystery process?"

Bottom line, The monkey is on your back. If you disagree with climate change science, it is time to buck up and show where you can demonstrate it is wrong. Saying you don't believe it is worth SFA. 

 
The shitgibbon doesn't require evidence to support his outrageous claims; why should climate change deniers?
 
haresfur  (The Golden Triangle)
Mar 15, 2017 - 5:06pm

The thing that is missing in the response to climate change deniers is asking for their evidence. The science community tends to focus on laying out all our reasons people are changing the climate and respond with more studies and more data when challenged.

But the real response should be, "Ok Scott Exxon, explain the science behind your belief. Do you agree that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? Does that CO2 end up in the atmosphere? Show evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that causes the atmosphere to trap more heat from solar radiation? What other mechanism do you have that explains our climate trends and calculate the magnitude of the effect (be sure to show your work)? How do you propose we can adapt to survive under conditions of periods in the earth history when temperatures were much warmer? If we mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, how much would that help provide additional time to adapt to any changes due to your mystery process?"

Bottom line, The monkey is on your back. If you disagree with climate change science, it is time to buck up and show where you can demonstrate it is wrong. Saying you don't believe it is worth SFA. 
 
 
 
rhahl
Jan 9, 2017 - 4:46pm

“Climate change may shut down a current that keeps the North Atlantic warm”

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14193498/atlantic-circulation-current-amoc-collapse-carbon-emissions-global-warming
 
 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77  Next